Cordiality and lack thereof...

J

jpa66

Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Local time
1:53 PM
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
804
Location
Chicago
View My Gallery
What's up with some people on this forum regarding the current state of film? It seems that there are a few people who continually prattle on about it's soon-to-be demise, and seem almost gleeful about it.

I'm no pie-in-the-sky optimist when it comes to the future of film, but I like to think at least a bit positively at it's prospect of continuation in a digital world. While I welcome most comments ( even negative ones ), I get tired of the outright negativity that seems to flow when the demise ( or sustainability ) of film is discussed.

My point is not that that I want to hear everyone claiming that film will last forever ad nauseum, but that there are ways of stating an opposing or unpopular opinion congenially and respectfully. Some of the posts seem a bit harsh and mean-spirited to me. If someone has a point of view or opinion that is counter to the OP, then by all means share it, but don't come across as an a**hole when you do it.

JP
 
What's up with starting another film/digital thread talking about niceness abuse in the 100 other film/digital threads? Betcha this one ends up with a distinct lack of "cordiality" as well. 🙄
 
hmm ... manners, restraint, cordiality, civility ...

i'm certainly guilty of failure to display the above, so i'd best not comment.
 
While no one really is hoping film will die soon there are certain facts. Film sales have dropped 15 to 20% yearly for about a decade now ( that is a great reduction). Polaroid has gone under, Kodachrome has stopped being produced, R&D investment has dropped and some favorite formulations are gone. There are fewer film cameras being sold and my guess would be that there will be fewer new models in the coming years. It is getting harder to buy some film locally (slide and MF). It is also getting harder to get it processed locally (E6 especially).
Yes, there are new formulations popping up but they are more likely cheaper ways of doing older ones. There are small producers making film and that is good news. But the good news is getting rarer and rarer these days.

I do not want to seem negative but film has gone from everybody using it to 5% of those people using it and many more people using camera phones and point & shoots in the space of about a decade. Facts as I seem them, maybe you see it differently.

Cordially,
Steve
 
Last edited:
sjw617 said:
While no one really is hoping film will die soon there are certain facts. Film sales have dropped 15 to 20% yearly for about a decade now ( that is a great reduction). Polaroid has gone under, Kodachrome has stopped being produced, R&D investment has dropped and some favorite formulations are gone. There are fewer film cameras being sold and my guess would be that there will be fewer new models in the coming years. It is getting harder to buy some film locally (slide and MF). It is also getting harder to get it processed locally (E6 especially).
Yes, there are new formulations popping up but they are more likely cheaper ways of doing older ones. There are small producers making film and that is good news. But the good news is getting rarer and rarer these days.

I do not want to seem negative but film has gone from everybody using it to 5% of those people using it and many more people using camera phones and point & shoots in the space of about a decade. Facts as I seem them, maybe you see it differently.

Cordially,
Steve
Click to expand...

Painting supposedly 'died' when photography was invented. Oil painting was supposed to die when modern Acrylic paints came out in the 1950s. Today, there are a number of companies making professional level oil paints to serve a market that is likely much smaller than the current film market. Someone will keep making it for the few artistic photographers who want it, just as oils continue to be made.
 
QUOTE
Painting supposedly 'died' when photography was invented. Oil painting was supposed to die when modern Acrylic paints came out in the 1950s. Today, there are a number of companies making professional level oil paints to serve a market that is likely much smaller than the current film market. Someone will keep making it for the few artistic photographers who want it, just as oils continue to be made.

there ya go,this is how it is. But i am sure the above quote will not be the end.

Got to remember that it is hard to judge a persons humour/rudeness etc on a forum, because there is no body lanuage or expression.

maybe some a paid `per post' by the digital marketing guys😀
 
jpa66 said:
What's up with some people on this forum regarding the current state of film? It seems that there are a few people who continually prattle on about it's soon-to-be demise, and seem almost gleeful about it.


JP
Click to expand...

Question; do you actually think anyone on these forums truly wants film to go away? I mean even if someone has never shot film before and never plans to, what do they gain by films demise? Nothing!
BTW You'll see the type of posts you're complaining about stop about the same time you see the " I shoot film so I'm better then people who use digital posts" So in other words don't hold your breath 🙂
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Painting supposedly 'died' when photography was invented.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. There is a famous old quote about it that is actually taken completely out of context, if that's what you mean.

"Painting is dead from this day!"​

Paul Delaroche said it, himself a painter and proponent of Daguerreotypes. It was not a general hue and cry, nor did painters everywhere throw down their brushes in dismay. Painting did not die, nor was it expected to die, predicted to die, or destined to die. One guy made a statement that was very quotable.

Unlike photography, painting was never 'mainstream'; by which I mean the average man-in-the-street did not engage in painting on the weekends when having a picnic with the family. It was always, and remains, an artistic niche.

In other words, aside from the fact that both photography and painting involve graphic representations, they're not comparable at all; least of all in how they will fare over the long term. Painting will continue long after the last roll of film in a freezer somewhere has gone wonky.

Oil painting was supposed to die when modern Acrylic paints came out in the 1950s. Today, there are a number of companies making professional level oil paints to serve a market that is likely much smaller than the current film market. Someone will keep making it for the few artistic photographers who want it, just as oils continue to be made.
Click to expand...

The bar to entry for paint and paint supplies is very low, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The bar to entry for making film is very high, also pointed out repeatedly. And the old saying about "if there is demand, there will be supply" is a lie, plain and simple. There are many demands which go unmet, that's life.

Film will continue to be made for some time to come. Whether or not there will be sufficient demand (and support for very high prices) to allow an art market to exist remains to be seen. But for all commercial purposes and to the average consumer or photography enthusiast, the writing is on the wall and no amount of happy talk will change it.
 
Mcary said:
Question; do you actually think anyone on these forums truly wants film to go away? I mean even if someone has never shot film before and never plans to, what do they gain by films demise? Nothing!
BTW You'll see the type of posts you're complaining about stop about the same time you see the " I shoot film so I'm better then people who use digital posts" So in other words don't hold your breath 🙂
Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone here truly wants to film go away, and that's not what I'm getting at ( although from reading some posts regarding this topic, it can sometimes appear to be that way ). I think that those who feel that film is going to die have as valid a point as those who feel that it will always be around. My point is that there are ways to state your opinion without getting nasty or un-civil about it. Some posts seem to go a bit beyond the bounds of civility and courtesy, when the point ( usually valid ) could be expressed in such a way that isn't inflammatory, derogatory or condescending.

Let's face it - the whole overall argument here is simply the opinion of the poster ( and I might stretch and say that many topics on this forum are simply opinions ). There are ways to get your point across without resorting to the use of a bludgeon.
 
bmattock said:
No, it didn't. There is a famous old quote about it that is actually taken completely out of context, if that's what you mean.

"Painting is dead from this day!"​

Paul Delaroche said it, himself a painter and proponent of Daguerreotypes. It was not a general hue and cry, nor did painters everywhere throw down their brushes in dismay. Painting did not die, nor was it expected to die, predicted to die, or destined to die. One guy made a statement that was very quotable.

Unlike photography, painting was never 'mainstream'; by which I mean the average man-in-the-street did not engage in painting on the weekends when having a picnic with the family. It was always, and remains, an artistic niche.

In other words, aside from the fact that both photography and painting involve graphic representations, they're not comparable at all; least of all in how they will fare over the long term. Painting will continue long after the last roll of film in a freezer somewhere has gone wonky.



The bar to entry for paint and paint supplies is very low, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The bar to entry for making film is very high, also pointed out repeatedly. And the old saying about "if there is demand, there will be supply" is a lie, plain and simple. There are many demands which go unmet, that's life.

Film will continue to be made for some time to come. Whether or not there will be sufficient demand (and support for very high prices) to allow an art market to exist remains to be seen. But for all commercial purposes and to the average consumer or photography enthusiast, the writing is on the wall and no amount of happy talk will change it.
Click to expand...

Bill, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Painting was commercially very important prior to photography's invention, enormous numbers of professional artists earned middle class and sometimes higher incomes painting portraits, signs, illustrations, etc. There's still a little work left for illustrators but most of them also do graphic design because there isnt enough work for illustration alone anymore, outside of a few stars. In the past large numbers of largely unknown artists worked and earned a living, that's gone. Painting declined as a commercial art form in the 19th century and was basically a fine-art only type of art from the beginning of the 20th. It wasn't until the 19th century that the 'starving artist' became a cultural icon.

No one has 'repeatedly' said that the barrier to entry in making artist paints is low. It is not. It involves working with extremely toxic powdered chemicals that are heavily regulated by the government and making good paints requires special machines that grind the powdered pigments into finer particles while mixing them into the linseed oil base. Artists did make thier own paints until the 1700's. They often didn't live long.

In any case, no one here who uses film gives a damn about consumers or mainstream markets anymore than Windsor & Newton or Gamblin or Schminke, or Old Holland or Grumbacher does (those are oil paint manufacturers, all still in business). Mainstream consumers don't buy oil paints, haven't for a century or more (painting was a popular hobby in the 19th century and into the early 20th...Winston Churchill among others did it for fun). Today mainstream consumers don't buy film. Artists and hobbyists do, just like with artists paints.

What the hell do I know though, I'm just a professional artist with a degree in art who is working on a degree in art history. So I don't have a clue what I'm talking about compared to the IT dude who knows EVERYTHING about....art?
 
One really has to have a thick hide to survive on the internet, especially on forums where passion frequently leads to passionate discussion/momologues.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
What the hell do I know though, I'm just a professional artist with a degree in art who is working on a degree in art history. So I don't have a clue what I'm talking about compared to the IT dude who knows EVERYTHING about....art?
Click to expand...

That's a low blow, Chris... don't you think? You need to go into a timeout!
 
FWIW, oil paint mfr Gamblin has been selling more and more:
http://www.gamblincolors.com/media.room/true.colors.html
Though Gamblin describes his sales tally as "private," he says the business has grown 18 to 20 percent each year. "
Click to expand...

Also, painting is in the top 100 hobbies according to Harris interactive. Photography doesn't even place:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/431380.html
2% Watching sporting events
2% Cooking
2% Entertaining
2% Painting
2% Running
2% Woodworking
1% Playing music
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom